Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Immigration and the New Class Divide

Anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise everywhere, from the US to Denmark to Singapore. But the cause is not bigotry or fear of competition for jobs; it is genuine anxiety stemming from the transformation of national, religious, and cultural identities in the new globalized world economy.

SINGAPORE – The British shadow minister for Europe, Pat McFadden, recently warned members of his Labour Party that they should try to make the most of the global economy and not treat immigration like a disease. As he put it, “You can feed on people’s grievances or you can give people a chance. And I think our policies should be around giving people a chance.”

In a world increasingly dominated by grievances – against immigrants, bankers, Muslims, “liberal elites,” “Eurocrats,” cosmopolitans, or anything else that seems vaguely alien – such wise words are rare. Leaders worldwide should take note.

In the United States, Republicans – backed by their Tea Party activists – are threatening to close the government down just because President Barack Obama has offered undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for many years a chance to gain citizenship. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) wants to introduce a five-year ban on immigration for permanent settlement. Russia’s deputy prime minister, Dmitry Rogozin, once released a video promising to “clean the rubbish” – meaning migrant workers, mostly from former Soviet republics – “away from Moscow.”

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

It is not merely bigotry. That is a subterfuge utilized by societal elites who gain cheap goods by keeping wages low through immigration numbers high, (whether legal or illegal).
The wage earners, as opposed to the salaried and wealthy classes, whose incomes are damaged by large immigrant inflows into any country. The anger of the wage earning class is the cause of Trump and sanders insurgencies in the USA as well as Corbin's popularity in England.
Watch the comments from supposed progressive media, as well as the comments from most media about "racism" etc..
The foolishness of the ruling classes and their supporters in the salaried classes is bringing the problems home to roost. Many of the wage earners have followed the leaders and then been hurt by those votes. Their fear and anger is real and deserved.
I was a wage earner before my retirement with a defined benefit plan. My good years may well be behind me as the USA economy and financial lessons are paid out.
My wife and I are moving to "Collapse Now, and Avoid the Rush". We know organic gardening, and many skills of living with less. If we are fortunate, we can ride out the storms to come and possibly teach our children, grandchildren, and community how to ease the pains as well.

Indeed, Pat McFadden makes the point that giving people "the tools to reap the benefits" of our globalised economy, there may be less losers. For those without openness - the uneducated, unskilled workers and poor farmers - a globalised world exacerbates vulnerability, allowing an influx of immigrants to take jobs away from the "natives". Closing the gap between winners and losers at national level demands investment in education and infrastructure, to boost competitiveness. Very often many aren't motivated to participate in vocation training and courses that aim to reskill those whose jobs have disappeared as a result of offshoring or industrial decline.
Not only do Tea Party or UKIP supporters share their fear of "losing their jobs to low-paid foreigners" with working-class voters, they also resent the loss of jobs, as a result of a move away from a manufacturing to a service-based, globally connected economy. Being unprepared for the new challenge, they are worried about being "left behind in a world of easy mobility". The restructuring of a country's economy means reduced security for lower skilled workers.
Despite anxiety they certainly don't share the urge for income distribution to the poor. Tea Party and UKIP both oppose progressive taxation. Their leaders are often wealthy individuals, who feel "looked down upon" by the intelligentsia and urban elite. So "they share the bitterness of those who feel alienated in a world they find bewildering and hateful".
For those who oppose economic globalization, they have to realise that the genie is out of the bottle. They can't and shouldn't reverse the tide of global economic change, but swim with it and wear a life jacket.

People migrate to make a better living for themselves and their families. People reject immigrants because they do not want to share. For those who insist that we are all god's children but never meant it, it's time to stop saying it.

Problem indeed it is ,and the only solution i see is honesty.The way we can move forward from the current dead end situation is to speak honestly and explain even to those with limited education what you will do and how you will deal with the problems.Yes it can become tedious to explain every detail ,but this is exactly why the left is depended on its people , and not on a high cast like the right parties.The left draws its power from people who contribute ,who want to participate in the running of their lives.And this is again a division between those metropolitan citizens who want participation,and the provencial types who dont want to have nothing to do with anything more then their own pocket.But in general i agree with you,even though i seem from my comments not to.:):)

george sos; Would you please reread your comments before you post, and see if they make sense to you, and correct your typos and spelling. I was interested in hearing your thoughts, but were a nightmare to try to make sense of.

globalisation is a term thathides a complicated reality.Not all globalisation is not possible to undo.
most of it,the artificial markets that trade nothing but thin air,they dont need to exist at all....and without them ,we are talking about globalisation that means a different thing,moving things around,commerce like humans always have done.
Yes we can undo this sytem.we can rip it apart and keep only what we need,in order to have a sustainable future on the planet.Globalisation of revolution is another good thing.We can revolt everywhere nowdays,all at once.But noone talks about that.instead we focus on what divides us,and make a big deal of it so we can attract attention to our worthless existences.....

the 2 are related.Rich provincial citizens (because this is what has happened,those out of metropolis are actually the rich,with land,agriculture production that can sustain them and even create income,not to mention the extra money they received for years for burrying their produce ,so that markets dont crash from over production).versus the poor who populate our cities in search for a better luck.It is still the same divide i think,Rich vs Poor.Nothing changed.Educated young people are populating cities ,and uneducated rich farmers are staying where they were.the extra rich ,dont belong anywhere,they move around.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.It is because they lack education that they are poor?...seriously?

The problem with much immigration policy within Western developed economies is that it is driven by top down bureaucracy rather than bottom up ordinary working people. A dangerous disconnect develops. Large ethnic ghettos exist in the UK and the USA where no white anglo dares to go. Nobody can call this good. EU bureaucrats push for free movement of people within Europe and the ordinary folk have to deal with the ill wind that blows. I hope and pray that one day we will all be muddy brown with slightly almond shaped eyes, but that process can only happen over an extended period of time. If disconnected bureaucrats and economic elites push that process too fast there will be a backlash from the ordinary local folk who see their own world turned upside down. The problem is many immigrants do not always fit seamlessly into their new adopted home. They bring new customs and beliefs alien to the local people and will often be as intolerant and suspicious of their new land as the local is of the new arrival. There is a Hitler in every society waiting in the wings to tap into the deep anxiety of all those who are dispossessed by this process. This is because In all those who have been dispossessed there is a latent Nazi, just waiting to explode. The time bomb is ticking!

Educated immigrants or those with skills are welcomed, but the main problem at the moment is massive movement of Muslim refugees heading for Europe. These are mostly undeucated farmers, so what use are they in a society where they are not ready or prepared to join the modern world.

Non-protectionism measures to improve the ability of entire segments of populations whose education and experience is geared towards low-tech industrial production should be prioritized. If elites will sell us on the broad benefits of trade, they should be prepared to cover the costs for those who will not benefit. That should be easy, given how much corporations can gain from freer movement of production factors, because corporations are always willing participants in upholding the social fabric of the societies which made it possible for some few hands to dominate such a large share of the gains.

An economist can easily show the theoretical ability for all economic agents to enjoy long-term gains from trade, contingent on transfers which respect the principle of Pareto optimality.

The theoretical ability to do so does not equate the political actuality of doing so, and therein lies the rub. Time and time again, poorly educated voters have been manipulated by right-wing and corporate interests into accepting liberalized trade under the principle of broader gains, while the suave communicators gloss over the fact of little or no plan to compensate those workers who lose out in the bargain.

And meanwhile, many knowledgeable people struggle to find out even basic facts surrounding the TPP negotiations. How can citizens cast an informed ballot if some of the biggest international negotiations on trade are held completely out of the public eye?

Global growth has been intertwined with migration of capital and labour for 300 years - that created The Anglosphere. European Union is also predicated on free movement of peoples as its cardinal principle. The China growth story is also predicated on migration - of rural folks into the 20 Urban Megacities being created. One Language is critical in facilitating the migration and harnessing its energies to build value. Europe is unfortunate unlike The Anglosphere and The Mandarins. But then it has One religion One race unlike the other two. Human instincts to carve out a superior slice perhaps creates conflict no matter what - when religion is the same language divide surfaces, when language is the same race divide surfaces, when race is the same religion divide surfaces. And when religion/language/race is the same regional 'Scotlands' surface. Living with diversity is easier said. Migration is inevitable. The magnitude of migration that the current generation faces has perhaps never happened in human history. Unlike The British Empire - during which migration was reasonably quarantined so that The Anglosphere remained largely homogenous - attempts to quarantine within Europe or within America increasingly seem likely to cause upheavals and rupture. Perhaps the attempt to replicate the demographics that economic growth created - during the Colonial Era - have to give way to new templates. Peacefully where possible. And it is always possible - living with diversity the New normal.

'Class' divisions "...between between educated metropolitan elites and less sophisticated, less flexible, and, in every sense, less connected provincials" largely reflect class divisions of inequality, between winners and losers in the globalized economy.

Wages in America have effectively stagnated for four decades and, as Autor and others have argued, the middle class is being "hollowed out". This is the result of the doubling of the global work force in low cost countries since 1990 (Freeman) which has led to offshoring (Blinder) and immigration to reduce labor costs increasingly for middle class work as well as work performed by the lower orders. But neo-liberal politicians are dependent on frunding from the winners (wealthy and corporations) so they have done their bidding and are now being outflanked by reactionary politicians who have found fertile ground.